Category Archives: politics

Syrian People Are Paying For Western Inaction With Their Lives

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser on behalf of the Syrian Democratic Coalition released the following statement regarding the escalating humanitarian crisis in Syria and the inability of the Obama administration to lead the world with a coherent strategy and action to directly aid the Syrian people in their quest for freedom rather than simply words:

“After over a year of demonstrations and over 7,000 Syrian men, women and children killed by Assad’s killing machine for simply wanting their freedom, it seems that there is no end in sight to the brutality of Bashar al-Assad and his military and no hope from the West or the UN for navigating a path forward for a Syria free of tyranny.

Bizarrely the United States and its western allies seem to be following the lead of the Arab League and its friends at the United Nations, cliques of autocrats often no better than Assad himself rather than lead free nations and immediately implement a clear strategy to end Assad’s regime. Britain’s foreign minister William Hague essentially took western intervention off of the table when he flatly stated ‘I don’t see the way forward in Syria as being western boots on the ground in any form, including in any peacekeeping form.’ Few are actually calling for “boots on the ground” but a Kosovo style solution with targeted bombing of military facilities and armamentarium would have essentially the same impact it did against the Serbs for the Bosnians giving in this case the Free Syria Army room and momentum to gain position, time, and safe zones. Hague’s comments seem to rather reflect a raising of the white flag in the face of determined opposition from Iran, Russia, China, and of course Syria itself.

The US’s attempt to bring together “Friends of Syria” is admirable but only one component of what should be a far more forward and comprehensive strategy to bring down the Assad regime and help foster a genuine transition toward democracy. The paralysis of the US and the West due to a fear of what may come next, sentences the Syrian people to their current miserable condition and bloodshed at the hands of the Baathist butchers in control of the Syrian military. Any transition will be messy but let us not let fear of change become accomplices in a horrific genocide occurring in towns across Syria. In the last week alone the city of Homs has seen continued shelling of neighborhoods, daily death tolls in the hundreds and an attempt to smother a town into silence by cutting off food, water and electricity.

There is no excuse whatsoever in 2012 for massacres like Homs to occur with inaction from the US and the free world. Shortsightedness may paralyze our weak leaders but in the end once the Syrians have rid themselves of Assad and all of his corrupt military leaders enacting kill orders across their nation against their own people, they will not forget how little the US openly did inside Syria to counter the forces of evil in Syria. If we have any desire to bring liberty to Syria rather than see it become Islamist, American soft power and some hard power must be utilized or all the Syrian people will know is how we sat silent as Iran, Russia, China, and Hizballah armed the Syrian military and they were aided only by a few Arab League nations. This is not the American legacy our families came to the US knowing and loving.

A Kosovo style solution with bombing, military air support, black ops and intelligence support, humanitarian aid, border aid with safe zones, genuine economic isolation through comprehensive sanctions (in addition to sanctions against direct Syrian supporters ie. Russia, China, Iran, and Lebanon) is possible and the only genuine support that will be in any way meaningful to the Syrian people. Any other so-called support with repeated diplomatic meetings, delay tactics, empty statements at press conferences is empty and transparently useless. The Syrian people know who is coming to their aid and who is not.

When Jay Carney on the behalf of the White House stated last week that the ‘right solution is a political solution’ for Syria this demonstrates such a profound ineptness and inability to articulate and understand the evil that is Assad and his military leadership that the US has fallen to an all-time low in its reliability in defending liberty abroad.

American diplomacy has taken a tragic turn when it is the UN’s Ban Ki Moon who is advocating the loudest for the freedom seeking people of Syria. Strategically Syria represents our greatest opportunity against the Iranian crescent of control through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. As an ethnically and religiously diverse nation Syria stands as the Arab nation ultimately most likely to arise out of both secular fascism and Islamist fascism.

Our inaction is being paid for with the lives of the Syrian people. The Security Council gridlock will do nothing to change the situation on the ground. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov told a news conference that ‘We should first have peace,’ before we agree to the Arab League proposal. Hypocritically the Russians are best suited to bring that peace by ceasing the arming and fueling of Assad’s military. The Syrian government does not make its own weapons. The United States needs to step away from the table at the UN and stop grasping at straws for a solution and seize the opportunity to lead for there to be any hope for change within the Middle East.”

—————————————————————

About Syrian Democratic Coalition

The Syrian Democratic Coalition (SDC) is an emerging coalition of diverse Syrian organizations coming together to help bring an end to the Assad regime and promote the transformation of Syria into a secular democracy based in liberty. The coalition is founded upon a belief in the separation of religion from state and is dedicated to establishing a new constitution and transparent federal republic in Syria, based in reason that equally protects minority rights, promotes gender equality, and embraces the rights and liberties of every individual as enumerated in the United Nations Declaration for Human Rights. This growing coalition crosses all ethnic, religious and tribal lines to represent all Syrians. It currently includes members of Save Syria Now!, the Kurdistan National Assembly of Syria, the Union of Syrian Arab Tribes and the Syrian Christian Democratic Movement.

Ohio Voters Support ‘Right-To-Work’ Law

Despite the overwhelming victory by organized labor and its allies in repealing SB 5 in this past election, by 54 to 40 percent Ohio voters favor the idea of passing a “right-to-work” law that would ban workers from being required to join a union as a condition of employment, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

“Given the assumption that the SB 5 referendum was a demonstration of union strength in Ohio, the 54 – 40 percent support for making Ohio a ‘right-to-work’ state does make one take notice,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. “In the SB 5 referendum independent voters, who are generally the key to Ohio elections, voted with the pro-union folks to repeal the law many viewed as an effort to handicap unions. The data indicates that many of those same independents who stood up for unions this past November on SB 5 are standing up to unions by backing ‘right-to-work’ legislation.”

Support for “right-to-work” is 77 – 20 percent among Republicans and 55 – 39 percent among independent voters. Democrats are opposed 61- 31 percent.

A majority of men and women, those with and without college degrees and all age groups like the idea of Ohio becoming a “right-to-work” state. Support rises with income, from 48 – 44 percent among those making less than $30,000 per year to 59 – 39 percent among those making more than $100,000 per year. Voters in union households oppose such a law 65 – 32 percent.

St. Valentine

By Rev. Dallas Henry

We don’t usually think of Valentine’s Day as an explicitly Christian holiday. Other major holidays have obvious Christian origins: Christmas (Christ’s incarnation) and Easter (Christ’s resurrection), but Valentine’s Day? It’s true that Valentine’s Day is not connected with an event in the life of our Lord like Christmas and Easter are, but Valentine’s Day does have some intriguing Christian roots. Along with most holidays, Valentine’s Day has suffered from its share of commercialization and confusion, yet the moving story of the original Valentine’s Day is worth remembering.

After about 1,700 years of history, it’s kind of hard to know exactly who St. Valentine was and what he did. The story is embedded somewhere in the depths of history, never to be known until we get to heaven. What follows may be part tradition and part truth, but completely fascinating.

The year was 270. The Roman Empire was engaged in a desperate attempt to retain the Pax Romana that had endured for centuries. Christianity was active during the 3rd century. Although Christ had died over two centuries prior, Christians were eagerly propagating their faith and churches were springing up everywhere. These early centuries of the church were the times of the great apologists such as Clement, Ignatius, Origen, Polycarp, Athanasius, and Chrysostom. But the 3rd century was also the time of the Christian martyrs. Prior to Constantine, the empire was not friendly to Christianity – not at all. Claudius, the reigning emperor of the time, was a warlord, intent only upon preserving his empire and routing out his enemies. Christianity was not on his “like” list. His primary interests were military, and he would stoop to nothing to ensure that his mighty army remained loyal to him.

It was Claudius’s grip on the military that led him to install a very foolish policy empire-wide. Claudius had a problem on his hands when it came to his army. He discovered that his men actually preferred to get married and stay home with their wives and families rather than risk their lives and sacrifice for their country! Military recruiting was suffering because of the affection between man and wife. Love was getting in the way of patriotism! Claudius would have none of it. Being the man with the big stick, he could make laws and enforce them, too.

So he did. Claudius passed a law forbidding marriage. Obviously, this was an outrage but he was serious.

Living in this anti-Christian and anti-marriage climate, was Valentine. Valentine was a Christian priest in Rome. He knew from the Bible that marriage was good and honored by God. He knew that marriage was lawful according to the Christian faith, so he took it upon himself to perform Christian marriages -contrary to the law. As a priest, he performed secret marriages for couples who desired to be married bravely defying the anti-marriage edict. It wasn’t just marriages that Valentine was working on. He was also trying to protect persecuted Christians who were being chased down and hunted by the aggressive Roman leaders. Christians knew that they could flee to Valentine to find protection.

Valentine was taking a huge risk in performing marriages in secret. Not only was it absolutely forbidden to marry or to perform marriages, but it was also a criminal offense to aid or abet Christians – especially ones whom the Roman Empire had on their hit list!

Valentine was enmeshed in what the Roman Empire considered high treason and traitorous activity. Although he was being loyal to his faith, he was flying in the face of Roman law.

One story reported that one evening he was performing a wedding at his church with the doors locked, no lights burning, and all speaking done in whispers. The soldiers first knocked on the doors and eventually broke them down. He quickly finished his last wedding, sent the new couple fleeing out the side door just as the soldiers came running down the aisle to apprehend him.

The Roman government locked him up in prison. Now, Valentine – protector of Christians and performer of marriages – was himself suffering for his love and devotion to God.

It got worse. Valentine, true to his bold character, tried to convert Emperor Claudius to Christianity. That was just too much. Claudius demanded that Valentine recant his faith and submit to the cruel and godless tyranny of Rome. Valentine staunchly refused. Then Claudius condemned him to torture and death.

While in prison St. Valentine was popular with the young people. One of these young people was the daughter of the prison guard. Her father allowed her to visit Valentine in the cell. Sometimes they would sit and talk for hours. She was an encouragement to him. She agreed that Valentine did the right thing by ignoring the Emperor and going ahead with the secret marriages. She and others would write Valentine little notes. On the day he was to die, February 14, 269 A.D., he left a little note thanking her for her friendship and loyalty and signed it, “Love from your Valentine.” The first “Valentine” card.

Although the story of Valentine’s Day is shrouded in mystery, buried in tradition, and (thanks to commercialism) stripped of its significance, we can bring some of the truth back. The truth is, love can’t be squelched, outlawed, or stamped out. The significance of Valentine’s life was not only that he defended love and romance and performed secret marriages. He chose to obey God rather than man. Remembering St. Valentine today, is besmirched by cupids, chocolate, and candlelit dinners – a day founded upon the life of a martyr. Valentine died a bloody death, beaten and beheaded. The truth is, Valentine was in love with his Savior, Jesus Christ. Love for Jesus trumped his love of self. Valentine nobly gave his life for the God he loved.

That is true love. But true love is deeper still. It goes beyond our love for God. I John 4:10; “In this is love, not that we have loved God but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” John 3:16 defines love: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”

Valentine’s Day is all about love.

The greatest love of all is that which sent Jesus to a cross. That kind of love goes beyond mere comfortable Christian existence. That is the kind of love that is willing to take risks, to sacrifice everything, and even to give our lives, if necessary, for Him who loved us.

God, please help your Church to love like that.

This article was first published in Leadership Post, a publication by Rev Dallas Henry.

WHO’s Report Is It Anyway?

By Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.

(NEW YORK, C-FAM) In recent weeks a new paper asserting that all nations should liberalize abortion laws has been characterized by the news media as an authoritative study by the World Health Organization (WHO), but the paper’s fine print says it’s not a WHO report. Why the mismatch?

The report found that “unsafe” abortion has increased in recent years despite the fact that abortions overall are declining. It concluded that in order to make abortion “safe” and to reduce worldwide maternal deaths, restrictive abortion laws should be rescinded.

Media coverage served mainly to disseminate rather than critique the report, which was published in the British medical journal Lancet. The Lancet also characterized it as a WHO study, a joint project with the Guttmacher Institute, which is the research arm of Planned Parenthood, an abortion advocacy organization.

Notably absent from news coverage of the story is that that the WHO has distanced itself both from the views contained in this study and the views of previous studies by the same authors. Two of the authors, including one WHO staff member, collaborated previously on a paper asserting abortion is a human right.

Just over a month ago, a top WHO official asked that the signers of the San Jose Articles remove a footnote in the Articles stating that the WHO had said, “[a]ccess to safe, legal abortion is a fundamental right of women, irrespective of where they live.” (The San Jose Articles is an expert statement on the status of the unborn child in international law.) The quote appeared in a WHO paper, published on the WHO website, and referring all inquiries about its findings to WHO. Yet the official asserted that due to a disclaimer in the paper’s fine print, the Articles could not accurately say that WHO embraced the view. Organizers of the San Jose Articles removed the note.

The new study carries the same disclaimer, which states, “The authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this paper and they do not necessarily represent the decisions, policy, or views of their institutions or those of funding agencies.”

Experts have sharply criticized the most recent report’s methodology, including the lack of data regarding abortion, a reliance on arbitrarily inflated abortion statistics, the conflating of spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) and planned or induced abortions, and the use of quasi-legal terms to define its dependent variable, “safe” abortion.

Such fundamental flaws would have made the paper warrant far less credence than it received. Arguably, it was the WHO imprimatur that caused many to overlook the errors in the rush to publicize it.

This raises the question: what is the position of WHO if it does not endorse the statement that abortion is a human right? And what is the position of WHO regarding whether all nations must liberalize abortion laws, the conclusion of this most recent paper?

If WHO’s position is neutral, why doesn’t this paper say so? The absence of such a statement leaves readers and reporters with the impression that the unambiguous declaration on abortion is the position of the organization that is disseminating the study.

Friday Fax asked WHO to answer these questions but the organization did not comment.

It is reasonable to conclude that WHO officials are trying to have it both ways: to endorse the controversial research but allow the organization to disclaim views when pressed.

Scientists have noted that WHO’s policy making role is in conflict with its research role in the area of reproductive health. They have urged WHO colleagues to abandon the political side of their work. The existence of a disclaimer in this latest, highly controversial and badly flawed paper, makes this recommendation all the more cogent – and urgent.

Susan Yoshihara is Senior Vice President for Research at the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute. Her article first appeared in the Friday Fax, an internet report published weekly by C-FAM and is republished here with permission.

Dawn of the Drones: The Realization of the Total Surveillance State

By John W. Whitehead

Imagine a robot hovering overhead as you go about your day, driving to and from work, heading to the grocery store, or stopping by a friend’s house. The robot records your every movement with a surveillance camera and streams the information to a government command center. If you make a wrong move, or even appear to be doing something suspicious, the police will respond quickly and you’ll soon be under arrest. Even if you don’t do anything suspicious, the information of your whereabouts, including what stores and offices you visit, what political rallies you attend, and what people you meet will be recorded, saved and easily accessed at a later date. It is a frightening thought, but you don’t have to imagine this scenario. We are only a few years away from the realization of this total surveillance society.

Congress has just passed a bill, the FAA Reauthorization Act, mandating that the Federal Aviation Administration create a comprehensive program for the integration of drone technology into the national air space by 2015. The FAA predicts that there will be 30,000 drones crisscrossing the skies of America by 2020, all part of an industry that could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars per year. This mandate is yet another example of the political power of the military-industrial complex, Congress’ disdain for the privacy of American citizens, and the rampant growth of government. With this single piece of legislation, Congress is opening the floodgates to an entirely new era of surveillance, one in which no person is safe from the prying eyes of the government. This may prove to be the final nail in the Fourth Amendment’s coffin.

Attempts to integrate drone technology into the national air space were underway long before Congress put its stamp of approval on the FAA Reauthorization Act. In fact, the FAA authorized 313 certificates for drone operation in 2011, 295 of which were still active at the end of the year, although the agency refuses to say which organizations received the certificates and for what purposes they were used. However, we do know that the FAA had already approved drones for use by the Department of Homeland Security, US Customs and Border Patrol (which uses the drones to conduct surveillance and counternarcotics missions), and certain state and local law enforcement operations. For example, in June 2011, a family of cattle farmers accused of stealing some cows were spied on with a Predator drone before being apprehended by police.

The fact that drones—pilotless, remote controlled aircraft that have been used extensively in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan to assassinate suspected terrorists, as well as innocent civilians—are coming home to roost (and fly) in domestic airspace should come as no surprise to those who have been paying attention. The US government has a history of commandeering military technology for use against Americans. We saw this happen with tear gas, tasers, sound cannons and assault vehicles, all of which were first used on the battlefield before being deployed against civilians at home.

Thus, while 83% of Americans approve of the use of drones abroad, and 65% approve of using drones to assassinate suspected terrorists abroad, even if they are American citizens, it remains to be seen how those same Americans will feel when they are the ones in the sights of the drones. Needless to say, they won’t have to wait too long to find out.

The power of these machines is not to be underestimated. Many are equipped with cameras that provide a live video feed, as well as heat sensors and radar. Some are capable of peering at figures from 20,000 feet up and 25 miles away. They can also keep track of 65 persons of interest at once. Some drones are capable of hijacking Wi-Fi networks and intercepting electronic communications such as text messages. The Army is currently developing drones with facial recognition software, as well as drones that can complete a target-and-kill mission without any human instruction or interaction. They are the ultimate killing and spying machines.

In addition to the privacy concerns, the safety of drone technology has been called into question. There have been a handful of high-profile crashes involving American drones abroad, including in Iran, the island nation of Seychelles, and most recently in Somalia. The Iranian government claimed they brought down the drone flying in their territory via a computer hack. This is two years after Iraqis were able to hack into the live feed of a few drones using “$26 off-the-shelf software.” Mind you, back in October 2011, the US military admitted that their drone fleet had been infected by a ‘mysterious virus.’ The faultiness of the drone technology and the fact that amateur hackers can access the controls and camera feeds are reason enough to ground these devices indefinitely.

Unfortunately, with the wars abroad winding down, America has become the new battleground in the war on terror, to the delight and profit of the military-industrial complex. In fact, with companies like Boeing and Lockheed Martin making their influence felt among members of Congress (Boeing spent over $12 million lobbying in 2011, and Lockheed spent over $11 million), you can be sure that their technologies will continue to be purchased by the government, even when there is no need for them. Thus, in the same way that our domestic police forces are now armed with mini-tanks and grenade launchers taken from the military’s armory, it was simply a matter of time before drone technology made its way back home.

We can sit around waiting for some member of Congress with a conscience or some judge concerned about the coming tyranny to push back against the drone empire from within. However, until the American people succeed in raising their collective voices against this technological tyranny, the powers that be will continue on the path to total control, and the condition of our civil liberties will become more dire with every passing day.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about the Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

Peterson Foundation Chairman on Unsustainable Fiscal Situation

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN7VPrh-i1Q&w=640&h=390]

Pro-Life Leaders Slam White House ‘Compromise’ On Birth Control Mandate

The White House announced today that, instead of forcing religious employers to pay for birth control, it will force insurance companies to offer the drugs free of charge to all women, no matter where they work. The plan, touted as a concession to freedom of religion and conscience, was immediately denounced by pro-life Rep. Chris Smith. “The so-called new policy is the discredited old policy, dressed up to look like something else,” said Smith. “The White House Fact Sheet is riddled with doublespeak and contradiction,” Smith continued. “It states, for example, that religious employers ‘will not’ have to pay for abortion pills, sterilization and contraception, but their ‘insurance companies’ will. Who pays for the insurance policy? The religious employer.”

Source: Life Site News, Feb. 10, 2012.

Pro-Life Congressman Steve Austria Questions Army Chief of Chaplains’ Religious Censorship

(COLUMBUS) – Today Congressman Steve Austria (R – Beavercreek) sent a letter to the Secretary and Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army questioning the Army Chief of Chaplains’ recent decision to disregard a letter sent to them by Archbishop Timothy Broglio on behalf of the Catholic Church. Bishop Broglio’s letter expresses concern
over the Department of Health and Human Services’ rule requiring coverage of contraception, sterilization and abortifacient services.

“The Obama administration has entirely overstepped its boundaries once again by outwardly censoring the voice of a religious institution,” said Ohio Right to Life President Mike Gonidakis. “This is an attack on American freedom unlike any we have seen in recent years. Ohio Right to Life is grateful to Congressman Austria for
taking a stand against this blatant and direct threat to religious liberty.”

The rule announced last month by the Obama Administration’s Department of Health and Human Services requires health plans to cover all FDA-approved forms of contraception which include both Plan B and Ella, forms of “emergency contraception” or the morning-after pill. There is significant evidence that these drugs can act as abortifacients by preventing a human embryo from implanting in the womb.

Ohio Right to Life thanks Congressman Austria for his immediate action in response to such injustices as those related to the Obama rule. To read Congressman Austria’s letter, click here.

In Defense of Religious Liberty : A Declaration Concerning Obamacare

Our federal government, charged under the Constitution not only to respect, but to protect and defend, our most fundamental freedoms, has now imposed upon people of all faiths a mandate that their institutions provide insurance to their employees to pay for abortion inducing drugs, surgical sterilizations, and contraceptives.

There is, for all intents and purposes, no recognition of the rights of conscience for those Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, or other faith-based employers to be free of this imposition.

The Catholic Church, as the largest provider of faith-based education, health care, and social services for the poor, is on the front lines of the struggle, but because of the required abortion drug coverage and the violation of religious freedom at the heart of the mandate, it is a struggle that implicates all believers. If the mandate is rammed down the throats of Catholics, no people of faith will be safe.

The Catholic bishops of the United States, dozens of whom are signers of the Manhattan Declaration, have made clear that they cannot and will not bend to the mandate. If forced to choose between the law of Christ and the edict of Caesar, they have no doubt about which master they will serve. If necessary, they are prepared to close institutions, and even go to jail, rather than comply with a human dictate in violation of what they believe, in conscience, to be the will of God.

All of us pledged such fidelity in the Manhattan Declaration. We saw this day coming, though few of us realized it would come so soon. Now we face the test: Will we, as we promised to do, “ungrudgingly give to Caesar whatbelongs to Caesar, but under no circumstances give to Caesar what belongs to God”?

The above was adapted from the Manhattan Declaration website on February 7th by Carol Conley. Conley is director of the Maine Family Policy Council.

Has the First Amendment Become an Exercise in Futility

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ-m2-b-9Po&w=560&h=315]